Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

plaintiff that they are not borrower, the definition of borrower provided under Section 2(f) of the Act of 2002 is required to be perused which runs as under :

"2(f).-"borrower" means any person who has been granted financial assistance by any bank or financial institution or who has given any guarantee or created any mortgage or pledge as security for the financial assistance granted by any bank or financial institution and includes a person who becomes borrower of a securitisation company or reconstruction company consequent upon acquisition by it of any rights or interest of any bank or financial institution in relation to such financial assistance;"

Here, in this case, para 2 of the plaint itself speaks that forward exchange purchase contracts were executed for the purpose of sanction of forward contract limit; meaning thereby, as per pleading itself the case of the respondent-plaintiff company falls within the definition of borrower because the company has given guarantee to get forward contract limit by way of executing forward exchange purchase contracts. Therefore, the company falls within the definition of borrower.

I have carefully perused the order passed by the learned trial Court under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. upon the application filed by the petitioner Bank. It is required to be said that while deciding the said application although the contentions with regard to falling of respondent-plaintiff company within the definition of "borrower" was mentioned in the application, so also, it was specifically pleaded that financial assistance by way of granting forward credit limit is given by the Bank, it does fall under the definition of "debt", therefore, the Act of 2002 is applicable, in which, there is complete bar for entertaining civil suit for the action taken by the Bank for recovery of debt; but, learned trial Court has not even considered or even perused the definition of "borrower" or "debt" provided under the Act of 2002.

In this case, the above discussion clearly shows that the company is availing financial facility, so also, as is admitted in para 2 of the plaint, for availing forward contract limit the company executed forward exchange purchase contracts which is a guarantee to the Bank for sanction of the limit, therefore, in my opinion, the respondent company very much falls within the definition of "borrower", so also, if any debit entries are made by the Bank arising out as a consequence of cancellation of forward exchange purchase contract, it falls within the definition of "debt" and the Act of 2002 and Act of 1993 are applicable in this case which is upheld by the apex Court in Merdia Chemicals' case (supra), therefore, Section 34 of the Act of 2002 is applicable and civil suit is barred.